Talk:Varg Vikernes/Archive 2

Again: Writer?

This is just obscene. I don't deny that Vikernes has written pamphlets Germanic neopaganism. However, the sources I got only mention this marginally. The article in the collection by Kaplan only says: "vakr Vikernes has been busy promoting his odinist and National Socialist philosphy from behind bars..." 1 sentence - as opposed to about one paragraph about Vikernes involvment in the Black Metal scene, and this article brings this under the category of 'poltical activism', too and not of 'writing'. Goodrick-Clarke includes two paragraphs on the BM scene, one on Vikernes musical activities and the church arsons and one on Vikernes' ideology. There you can read: " He [Vikernes] has also written a book Vargsmal, underlining his role as chieftain of the Norwegian heathen front." he brings this under the category of political activism, too. Gardell only quotes once from Vargsmal, the part about the grave desecration, he doesn't mention Vikernes 'writings' any further. Coogan doesn't deal with Vikernes' writings at all, neither does Satan rides the Media, if I remember correctly.

So, in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, especially Wikipedia:undue weight, it would be misleading to say that he is a writer. Of course, why should it put up with this? After all, this article also includes a section on his musical equipment for which there is no reliable, secondary source. Well, there is a difference here. If someone his a fan of Vikernes' music then there is not much that I personally can say against that, other than to point out that the music is made by a convicted arsonist and murder with explicitly racist view; however, if someone is a fan of Vikernes' explicitly racist writings, then this gives me the impression that that someone is a racist, too. You might be saying: "So what, personal views are not the issue here," and that would be correct. An editors personal views are not of interest, as long as the edits stay within wp:NPOV and Wikipedia's other policies. But to say that Vikernes is a writer is at least misleading according to wp:NPOV: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. " The only reliable sources we've got don't discuss his writing outside of Vikernes political views. This means that we could probably say that he's a 'political activist', but not that he is a writer. And actually, personal views are an issue here; I don't like racists and I don't need to be soft on people that I don't like. Zara1709 (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, his book "Germansk Mytologi Og Verdensanskuelse" is about mythology, not racism. you can find order info, isbn number, and number of pages here[Germansk Mytologi Og Verdensanskuelse]. Since you have a history of seeing the word "writer" and not actually looking through the sources I'll go ahead and list it here. ISBN: 91-973819-0-X You are just ignoring the absolute fact that he not only writes, but has a published book. I know you don't like him, neither do I really, but a man who writes and publishes his writings (esp. a book) is a writer by occupation. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR PUNISHMENT! we are not going to ignore the fact that he is a righter becuase you ASSUME that ALL of his writings are racist (and ONLY about racism). Technically he's also a song writer, and the mythology book making him non fiction writer as well. you just hate him and don't want him to seem literate. Put it isn't NPOV. "He's mean, so I don't want people to think of him for his writings or music, just being racist and a murderer," but there's nothing you can do... he is a writer, he is a musician, he is an activist, he is a song writer, and he will be given credit on this page for ALL his works (not just ones YOU don't think are important enough to vandalize). I am not trolling, I'm stating facts and editing with the sources stated for everything. I will seek others to begin the process blocking you from editing if your trolling persist. If you don't like the FACT that he is a writer then I suggest you start looking at other articles. Wikipedia's NPOV policy doesn't include a "zara hates him" clause. and that's all you have.

I don’t see a murder, musician, writer, or even a Norwegian. I see a biographical article about the guy and I want the info complete. Zara, there was another group of people that hated a particular viewpoint and tried to censor most writings done about this view (sometimes to the point of directly burning the books) and I think you two would get along. Their called Nazi and your censoring vandalism would make them smile (while you‘re at it you might want to try to have all of his books burned, then One might not be able to call him a writer). But until that day I must stay with wikipedia’s NPOV. I have enough info to call him a writer and list his writings. You may provide sources to counter this info, but until then I will continueHe’s a writer, if you don’t like that then go obsess over a different article. I will not tolerate your vandalism for much longer before I start looking for others (who may be willing to ACTUALLY BE NEUTRAL) to stop this vandalism. Take the time to look over the sources and consider what wikipedia’s policy and guidelines actually are. And see if being racist means (to wikipedia‘s policy) is a reason for slander and omissions. 172.129.204.87 (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you are talking about the book that Vikernes advertises on his homepage as follows:

"So, I say that unfortunately my work as a writer is known because of "Vargsmål". However, the only other book I have had published this far is "Germansk Mytologi Og Verdensanskuelse" (Teutonic Mythology And Worldview), written (in 1998) in Norwegian, so it has not been read by that many people. I called it "Teutonic" rather than "Scandinavian" solely to provoke the politically correct "intellectuals" in Norway, who seem to regret the fact that the Germans ("those horrible Nazis") share our religious and cultural traditions. The problem with publishing a book in Norwegian is that I am so boycotted in Norway that any form of distribution will always be hopeless, and even libraries refused to take it, and if they did, they often refused to let people borrow it (!?). A student I talked to in 2003 in Tønsberg told me the librarian let her borrow it only after she had assured her that it was for an essay she wrote in context with her university education and that she was old enough not to be influenced by it. Apparently we have a political censorship in the public libraries in Norway. (How very "democratic".) There is in other words no wonder that I am not well-known for writing about mythology... It should come to no surprise to anybody that the media in Norway has ignored this book completely, so I don't think many Norwegians even know it exists." (http://www.burzum.org/eng/library/a_comment_to_vargsmal_and_other_books_by_varg_vikernes.shtml)

1)He himself admits that he is not known as a writer. 2) He specifically comments on the political content of the book. ("those horrible Nazis").

And since the Norwegian edition is linked as a pdf on the hompage, I checked it out. It includes sentences like this one:

"Hevnen som vi ser forherliget i de islandske sagaene er ikke uttrykk for germansk ånd, men snarere uttrykk for forfall i den germanske ånd. Når vi vet at en overveldene stor del av den islandske befolkning er helt eller delvis av keltisk opprinnelse (rundt 90% visstnok) kommer årsaken til denne ugermanske tendensen klarere frem. Kelterne, som ble brakt til Island som treller, er såkalte kortskaller (brachycephale), i motsetning til oss germanere som er langskaller (dolichocephale)." (p.110)

Unfortunately I don't speak enough Norwegian to make out the exact meaning of this sentences, but talking about Craniometry in a book that is supposed to deal with "Teutonic Mythology And Worldview" is highly suspicious. Or do you want to argue that Vikernes is a biological anthropologist, too? Zara1709 (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I did an ip check for the three ips involved: 172.129.204.87, 172.130.179.89, 172.162.151.57; All are AOL and point to the same address, 20166 Dulles, VA, as does the ip. 172.130.135.17, that vandalised my talk page 2 months ago. diff 1, diff 2. I don't need to put up with this. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, create an user account, otherwise I'll just continue to handle this as vandalism. Zara1709 (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this is a college library computer, I don't know, nor care, what others have done on wikipedia with the computers here. Second, I'm in MS, not VA. Third, none of this as anything to do with the fact that you are a habitual vandalizer! I will continue to keep the article as is. PERIOD.172.163.184.165 (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, this is what I wanted. Zara has kept my constructive edits and changed the wording from "wrote several pamphlets" to "authored several writings", I agree that mythology mentioned is covered (at least in Varg's case) with "neopaganism" and I thank Zara for keeping the edits we could reach an agreement on. As far as the things you mention. His writings do seem to be that of an atheist (a religious one albeit) but the sources are... well, inconclusive, more info will surface after he has served his time. As for composer, I've always defined a composer as someone who writes in musical notation for publication, which I have reason to think Varg is such. So with that I thank zara and apologize for the warring. Next time I'll discuss the problem first, once again I'm sorry. As far ass the ip check, the computers in this school are unable to go to several sites (or download from some) due to everyone acting like idiots (I can't download "home of the underdog" because of this) so If someone did say that about your mother I stand by that it wasn't me. I will take everyone's advice and create an account the next time I decide to edit. I consider the problem resolved, once again sorry for my newbie-ness, and thank you for compromising zara, I would like to make one statement about wikipedia, their needs to be guidelines on what an occupation is define as far as wikipedia is concerned, or maybe I just didn't see it. well, goodbye everybody. 172.164.211.91 (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Zara, the fact that Vikernes is a "convicted arsonist and murder with explicitly racist view" is completely irrelevant to his music. And also, what Vikernes has written about is irrelevant to the fact that he is a writer or not. Now, according to dictionary.reference.com, one of the definitions for 'writer' is a person who commits his or her thoughts, ideas, etc., to writing: an expert letter writer. Therefore, I believe that it would be fine to mention that Vikernes is a writer. Face it, his book Vargsmal is available to be bought online. He is as much a writer as any other person who has authored a printed publication. Vikernes stated on www.burzum.org:

If You by any chance wish to read anything written by me in the future You will have to wait for my books to be published (possibly under a pseudonym…) by individuals who will make sure my copyrights are respected.

Obviously, this shows that Vikernes intends to possibly write more books in the future as well, further supporting the generally accepted idea that he is a writer.

Things like this just make it even more obvious that you are most definitely against Varg Vikernes himself, and that your own personal viewpoints are 'leaking' onto this article. You need to put your views on racists - and other matters - aside when you write here. I can't believe you claim to maintain a NPOV, when you say things like "I don't like racists".

By the way - Varg is not a national socialist. On burzum.org he has stated:

What makes me different from the "nazis" are basically three things; unlike them I am not socialistic (not even on a national level), I am not materialistic and I believe in (the ancient Scandinavian!) democracy.

It would be unwise to call Varg a national socialist from now on. If you do, it will just prove that you are willing to ignore the facts.

Also, I will be adding sources for the Equipment section as soon as possible. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 10:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a statement concerning the newly added line: "Later he became a prominent organizer for the Heathen Front and authored several writings on Germanic neopaganism that were only received within the neo-völkisch movements." This is simply untrue (and not cited) about his books "only received within the neo-völkisch movements". Perhaps "primarily received"? Even then, there is no specific source for this information and sounds construed based on assumption that only people involved in "neo-voelkisch movements" (whatever those are) have ever been interested in his books. I'd say this part should be removed completely, because it seems more likely that those interested in black metal and know him from Burzum are more likely to read his works than those restricted to certain movements.

I see that this line has been added, and it states that he has "authored several writings". So, we can say he has "authored several writings" but he is not defined as a "writer"? How is this? As far as I know, "author (of books)" is the same as a "writer"? No? Seems the reason this keeps popping up is because of the obviousness of the matter.

Seems the only reason "writer" has been lacking from the article is because of only one person who keeps close tabs on this article. I speak of course of Zara1709. I do not understand why an article should reflect one person's point of view and not the majority's after it has been thoroughly discussed and concluded that he is in fact a "writer". So, I ask all others who agree that the majority of intelligent arguments for the inclusion of "writer" to be listed under occupation should be concluded as the final word on this matter, since Wikipedia was formed primarily to allow more than one editor and to not allow one person control over the flow of information. Strangely, this is exactly what we have here: control of information. So, I suggest we include "writer" and treat the oppositional voice in context and of proper weight.

I have changed the particular items I mention above. Please voice support or opposition in a reasonable discussion. Alphaknave (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I had already expressed my impression that some people here have difficulties of distinguishing between writing something and being a writer by occupation. Mentioning "writer" in the occupation field would give the impression that he would be a professional writer, (like Fiction) which he is not. I even obtained a third opinion on this: [1]. And stop complaining about 'censorship', i.e. that I would force my views through here. You should be able to understand perfectly well that Wikipedia is not a free web space for fan pages. So regardless of whether there are 1 or 4 fans of this guy here doesn't really matter. Zara1709 (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

To explain the sentence about the Neo-völkisch movements: This is what Goodrick-Clarke writes about Vikernes activities: "While in jail, Vikernes began to formulate his national heathen ideology using materials from Norse mythology combined with racism and occult National Socialism. These essays were published in various underground publications and in Filosofem, a neo-Nazi magazine published by Vidar von Herske, ..."(Black Sun, p. 204) We could probably replace "neo-völkisch movements" with "neo-Nazi underground", if you'd prefer that. This is what one of the few academic sources has to say on Vikernes. Zara1709 (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "A writer is anyone who creates a written work, although the word usually designates those who write creatively or professionally, as well as those who have written in many different forms."

Cite the quote from Goodrick-Clarke. Alphaknave (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it: If we say write in the occupation field that would give a casual reader the impression that he would be notable as a professional writer, which he is definitely not. This would give undue weight to a perception of a minority (only that this minority appearsin the majority on this talk page), since Vikernes is known as a musician, criminal and political activist - to the general public in that order; Check the articles on Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin (those were the first 4 I could think of): Everyone of them was a writer in the technical sense that he wrote something, but none of them is listed with the occupation of a writer, because their political activities are far more notable. Zara1709 (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually tend to agree with Zara here (wow!). If the well-known historical figures she listed aren't 'writers', then Varg is in the same category really. To resolve this issue, I think that Varg should not have 'writer' listed as an occupation, because he does not write books for a living, et cetera. Vargsmal is the only proper book he has written, from what I know. However - the article should mention that during his imprisonment, Varg has written various articles, pamphlets for the NHF and so forth, and of course Vargsmal. This is one of the main activities that he has pursued within prison and needs to be elaborated on more anyway. I could write a section on this if you want. The NHF is not neo-nazi underground, if that's who Zara refers to when she mentions "neo-völkisch movements", btw... Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Motives

Once again, somebody has decided to 'expand' the section on the murder of Euronymous by discussing several motives. This is fine, but claiming that the motive is "unclear" when Vikernes has clearly stated the motive on his website is ridiculous. On his website Vikernes even discusses the incorrect motives, created by the media, misinformed authors, and so forth. In A Burzum Story: Part II - Euronymous, Vikernes discusses/covers these motives:

• Power struggle between leaders of the underground metal scene/Satanic circle/Black Metal Inner Circle or whatever else you/authors/the media refer to it as
• Financial issues with Euronymous and/or Deathlike Silence Productions
• Euronymous closing his record shop Helvete, where most of the early Burzum albums were sold.
• A girl(friend).

I am going to have to rewrite this section of the article so it is more balanced and less anti-Vikernes. Discussing all these motives and then ignoring that Vikernes has written about the real motive in-depth is almost disgusting. You can't just ignore facts to suit your interpretation/opinions of a subject.

I would also like to question where Kevin Coogan got his sources for his idea of the motive, when he says "...Vikernes, with the dynamite that was found in his possession after the arrest, intended to "destroy an Oslo-based punk anti-fascist squat called Blitz House [and concludes:] Vikernes may have felt that he had no choice but to kill Euronymous before bombing Blitz House because 'the Communist' would almost certainly have opposed such an act." Vikernes doesn't discuss Blitz or Blitz House on his website as a motive at all, and I can't find any interviews with Euronymous on Blitz either. Sounds like a crazy load of crap to me... Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see your problem. The quote that "the murder has been 'variously described as a power struggle between rival leaders of the Sartanic circle, a conflict over a girl's affection, or a dispute over a record contract,'" is sourced to a work edited by an academic - and it is worded completely neutral. Kevin Coogan's explanation is merely summarized; Coogan himself is a journalist, but he wrote a 600+ page book on Neo-Nazism (a biography of Francis Parker Yockey) that was highly praised by academics like Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, who wrote the foreword. With our standard: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, these two sources are certainly more reliable than Vikernes himself, who might be attempting to obscure the events or his involvement in them. Obviously, under that guideline, Vikernes homepage would fall under the category of extremist sources. This doesn't mean that we mustn't use it, and if you consider it hat important, you might as well add one or two more sentences about Vikernes motive based on his homepage, but don't take out the more reliable ones. Zara1709 (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think calling Vikernes' homepage "extremist" has nothing to do with this, and to assume that Vikernes lies, whereas people who are just submitting their theories with no real understanding or evidence to back up their claims (such as a name of a girl or any sort of background here? I mean come on! This is just speculation at best! There is no specific evidence to support any of these, at least described in here.) However obviously biased against him such a statement is (reminds me of such assumptions that all Muslims are "terrorists"), this can be easily solved by including all sources on the subject and then stating who said them. I think it is rather ridiculous that some "academics" who are "experts" on "Neo-Nazism" should be presented (considering an expertise on Nazism does not make you any more qualified to make a theory as to why Varg killed him, unless you happen to have more information on the event than anyone, such as the police, judges, etc), but the opinion/story/explanation of the person who actually did the act should not. Just write who says the explanation/opinion and follow it by their opinion. Simple. Non-biased. Unless you can see some bias in this somehow? I am seriously trying to understand your point-of-view. Alphaknave (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll start with a (obviously politically biased, unauthorative, unreliable and extreme) quote from Vikernes:

It has been kind of interesting to see how some people have felt a need to make up stories regarding the why I ended up killing Euronymous. It is sad to see that people make up stories just because the truth is uncomfortable to them.

That's about all that needs to be said... Vikernes has had the same story since the murder in 1993, although the media claims it has changed several times. The thing is, Vikernes has nothing at all to gain by 'obscuring' any events, he'd already been in prison for 10 years when he wrote that article. Vikernes wrote that article so that intelligent readers could find out his account of the murder without any speculation on motives from so-called "reliable sources", and form their own opinion on the events. Vikernes does not influence the reader's opinions at all, except in claiming that Euronymous was an idiot and that the media is unreliable and left-wing. The whole point of www.burzum.org is that the reader is presented with the facts straight from Vikernes himself, and that the reader is encouraged to form their own opinions. The thing is, the books you cite as being 'reliable sources' seem to be full of opinions and speculation whereas www.burzum.org is just pure facts, intended to disspell the speculation and rumours.

To cut to the chase, my problem is not with the quotes themselves, my problem lies with the fact that you claim that the motive for the murder is completely unclear, even though Vikernes has elaborated on the motive himself in a very neutral manner. Also, the quote from K. Coogan is just speculation, and this quote is not used appropriately for Wikipedia. I never had a problem with the quote that "the murder has been 'variously described as a power struggle between rival leaders of the Sartanic circle, a conflict over a girl's affection, or a dispute over a record contract,'" because yes, it is neutral. I did not say I had a problem specifically with this quote. Only K. Coogan's quote, if you had read my message properly the first time.

By the way, the "extremist sources" argument is actually irrelevant here. Sure, Vikernes is a bit of a political extremist, but his opinions on politics and religion are in no way related to the motive of the murder itself. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add this as well, a quote from the reliable sources page: "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience or extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities". Therefore, it would be right to include Vikernes as a source for an article on himself, but not for a subject such as Heathenism or anti-semitism for example. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding misinformation in this article: I would like to mention to the author(s) of this article that Varg Vikernes was never convicted of burning any stave churches. He was in fact found not guilty of having kindled the one and only stave church he was ever accused of having kindled (Fantoft Stave Church), and the churches he was found guilty of having kindled were all normal churches. Further; his daughter was born in 1992, not 1993 as stated in this article. She was born in July 1992 actually (Cancer). When it comes to his childhood and background, I cannot understand why you write anything at all when all you think you know is, pardon my french, a load of crap from Lords of Chaos(LoC). The information in LoC can at best be described as highly dubious, not least considering the fact that Vikernes himself has stated, in at least one article on www.burzum.org, that it is not trustworthy whatsoever. Please stick to the facts. Oh, and by the way; it you want to write an article about a person, and you lack the information you need to do so, why don´t you simply ask that person for information? I don´t think he will bite you or anything... and he is after all still alive. Besides; why would Varg Vikernes lie about his childhood if you asked him about it? When it comes to the slaying of Aarseth, there are a few sources you can contact if you want accurate information. If you don´t trust Vikernes himself, why don´t you simply ask Snorre Westwold Ruch, living in Trondheim (Norway), playing in a band called Thorns? To my knowledge he can actually not only confirm the (in "black metal Norway" well-known) theory that Vikernes killed Aarseth solely because Aarseth planned to murder him, but he can even confirm Vikernes´ own claim that Vikernes knew about Aarseth´s plans before he killed him. It was namely Snorre W. Ruch who let Vikernes listen in when Aaarseth told Ruch about his plans for Vikernes (source; Vikernes´ own article called Euronymous, on www.burzum.org). Why speculate when you can have the facts? When it comes to the explosives and assumed plans by Vikernes to blow up the so-called Blitz house, this apparently stems from a joke made by Vikernes´ in court (as if that´s a good place to make such jokes...) when asked by the prosecutor why he had that much explosives at home. In reality Vikernes was a paranoid nationalist, rabidly anti-NATO and anti-American and obsessed with the idea that the Norwegians could and should defend their own country if attacked. He was too paranoid to own any legal arms and explosives (if we are paranoid nationalists with no trust whatsoever in the government we don´t want to be registered as gun-owners and potential partisans do we? :-o), so he aquired illegal arms and explosives. To be used in the defence of Norway in case of an American or (according to him) a less likely Soviet invasion. When it comes to the authenticity-question of the Vikernes-articles on www.burzum.org I don´t get it; why is LoC any more credible as a source than www.burzum.org is? Vikernes started writing for www.burzum.org in the first place because he wanted to shut up gossipers, like the writers of LoC and the guys behind www.burzum.com and other dubious websites. If in doubt, just ask him or the man behind www.burzum.org (his address is: battlegrim@yandex.ru. Why do you automatically listen to what somebody (Michael Moynihan and Didrik Söderlind) is saying about a person they don´t know, rather than listen to the man himself? Maybe you don´t want the facts, but instead write whatever suits you best? What is your political agenda? Is that fair to those who genuinly want to find out about Varg Vikernes? I don´t think so. When it comes to the pseudonym he used, The Count (no. Greven), I know that he never used the Norwegian version of this name himself. Apparently only those who didn´t know him (and Aarseth) used it. He only used the English version of the name as a pseudonym for use on the Burzum albums only. To my knowledge, and as I recal it from some interview, he has stated something like "you can know whether a person knows me or not by their use of the Greven-name. If they know me, they don´t use it. If they don´t know me, they use it." With regards from Expert on the subject, November 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.220.100 (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources and Expansion

As someone who has read everything that there is from the academic literature on Vikernes (as far as I am aware of it), I am honestly amazed by the unfounded claims that are made on this discussion page. I mean, quote: "Varg Vikernes was never convicted of burning any stave churches." ?? In Gardell's Gods of the Blood, you can read:

"To the public, Varg Vikernes of Burzum, currently serving a Norwegian maximum sentence of twenty-one years for stabbing Euronymous to to death and for three counts of arson, has come to personify the underground shift toward violent direct action." (p. 306)

edit: Ok, on reading the Ip comment again I realize that it was only about the Stave churches. Well, why the polemics then?

Generally it is possible that academics get facts wrong, too, and actually I am quite critical of Gardell's evaluation of a certain another point, but that is a different issue and we can trust Gardell to get this basic fact right. Academics have much higher standards than your usual (anonymous´) web page or even the media. If you write something on your homepage that is no true, nothing particular will happen (unless it's important enough for someone to sue you) and when the media gets something wrong, generally the most they do is to apologize. If you get facts wrong as a historian or social scientist, your academic reputation is ruined. This is why at Wikipedia, with our guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources we value academic sources the highest. And since the editors who apparently would intend to disagree here have at least been civil enough NOT to start and edit war, let me add a little more explanation. I hold that, according to the guideline reliable sources, academic works (scholarship) are to be rang above journalism (news organizations) and both are to be ranked above web pages like burzum.org (Self-published sources, if not Extremist and fringe sources). This means, that the books by Goodrick-Clarke and Gardell the most reliable sources, followed by the Encyclopedia of White Power (which we can discuss in detail when this should become necessary). As journalist with a good academic reputation (albeit for a different work) Coogan is in my opinion on the the same level as the Encyclopedia. Below that there are the various documentaries, newspaper articles and that like; than there is Lords of Chaos, which is problematic. It can be considered journalism and includes a lot of information about the topic, but the authors (Moynihan's predominantly) viewpoints make it very difficult to evaluate. But even below that, then there is www.burzum.org.

if you disagree with this evaluation of the sources, we would need to discuss this here, of course. Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a guideline (not a policy) and there is some room to maneuver. However, Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy and not negotiable. If we have a disagreement between the sources - which we have here a lot - there is no reason NOT to mention all the different opinions. This is why I not only added the statement that Vikernes was a skinhead (probably even a National Socialist one), but also added the material from LoC according to which he only had short hair and admired the Germans while hating the British and Americans. If one of the not-so-reliable source says something that it not mentioned at all (neither positively nor negatively) in the academic sources, there is no reason NOT to add it. This is why I added the Baghdad story and this is also why the stuff about Vikernes equipment can stay.

So much for the sources; You will have seen that I flagged a few sections with 'expand-section'. I think I should be able to do that in a few days. Especially I want to apologise to User:Superfopp for interrupting him. However, with you first edit you lost some information that might be considered important; that Vikernes recorded two albums while in prison and Jørn Tunsberg was involved in one of the church arsons. (diff) Naturally I will acknowledge that the material of the article could be organised better, and I appreciate the effort to do so, but I personally consider it important to keep such detailed information in the article. Zara1709 (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

New entry 20. nov 2008

What good is it to trust a book that was (apparently) based solely on the sources you find less reliable? What good is it to trust Goodrick-Clarke and Gardell when their sources are Lords of Chaos and the internet? I mean; Mein Kampf was published too, but does that make it any more reliable as a source about the German pre-WWII situation? Is the content of a book true only because it was written in a published book? When it comes to the Encyclopedia of White Power there are some other factors to consider too, like the ethnicity of the author. If you trust a Jew like Kaplan to tell the truth about "nazis", would you trust a "nazi" to tell the truth about a controversial, left-wing extremist Jew too? Further, Kaplan obviously has his facts wrong; from what I recall (it has been a while since I last read it) he didn´t even get the basic facts right when it comes to the release dates of the Burzum albums. When he fails to read off the back of an album that it was released this or that date, how can we trust his other work to be any better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.220.56 (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet another new entry 20. nov 2008

I don´t know about Gooodrick-Clarke, but I know Gardell has his own political agenda, just like Moynihan and Söderlind by the way, so I wouldn´t trust him as a source about Vikernes at all. Finally, I can add that I would like to see what you have to say about the suggestion that you simply communicate with the man himself. Why not? Is it fair to him not to let him have his say about these horrible accusations? Or maybe he is invisible, dead and/or living on another plane? but I don´t think so....

'Political activist'

Since there appears to be the need to discuss whether we want to say that Vikernes is a political activist: If you look at this talk page, there was a lot of discussion whether we should say that Vikernes was a writer. Although technically he wrote some things, to say that he is a writer by occupation would be seriously misleading. His 'writings' are only mentioned in the secondary literature insofar, as they constitute a part of his political activities. This is why I included 'political activist' in the lead, and I don't see any reason to change that. Zara1709 (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Addition

Added life after prison portion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.199.120 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed as unreferenced. Twri (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent claims of death

A Norwegian newspaper [2] (in Norwegian) reported that someone got shot to death and this particular someone had been suspected of assaulting Varg Vikernes while in prison. This article does not state that the victim of the crime was Vikernes himself and the facts confirm this. Vikernes and the victim in the story are of different ages (37 versus 38-39), served different sentences (21 years vs. 10 years) at different times (1994 onwards vs. 1995 onwards), were released at different times (2009 vs. 2000) et cetera.

Varg Vikernes is not dead, please stop making edits about his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maraz (talk • contribs) 06:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Murderer

This guy murdered someone and the section on it strongly makes it out to seem like self-defense and really only tells skinhead-boy's lie side of the story. He was convicted of first-degree murder, not manslaughter or murder in self-defense. He went in there with a large knife, military gloves, and two alibis set up, and all of this was present in the trial and it is all documented in Lords of Chaos, which I am sure many here are familiar with by now. I'm not going to change it, but I suggest it be changed take out the clear pro-Blargh sentiment. He is a cold-blooded killer who literally stabbed his former friend in the back, even according to HIS side of the story. Lowest of the low. Fermentor (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Think about it for a second - Varg's account of the murder is the most accurate one, because Euronymous can't exactly give his side of the story, and Snorre was having a smoke outside while it happened. Also, there's no reason for Varg to lie about the murder, he's already been in prison for 14 years... its not like lying is going to get him out.

So who else do you suggest should give their account of the murder? ...Michael Moynihan? ...Didrik Søderlind? ...The Norwegian Media?

Who's gonna provide the most factually accurate account - a speculative book based on lies and hearsay, or Varg himself?

So, once again, I am suggesting to another Lords Of Chaos reader to read A Burzum Story: Part II - Euronymous in order to straighten their facts out.

In rebuttal to your argument, Varg did not intend to drive the 400-500km journey from Bergen to Oslo just to kill Euronymous, he went to return the record contract Euronymous had sent him. Snorre went to Oslo with Varg because at that time he was the session guitarist for Mayhem and had made up some new riffs that he wanted to show Euronymous. Varg intended to leave Snorre in Oslo, and to continue driving to Sarpsborg with a box of Burzum t-shirts to give to Metalion of 'Slayer' magazine. Your theory about Varg being a backstabber isn't true either, seeing as he only stabbed Euronymous in the left shoulder and the forehead.

Please keep your opinions to yourself, they DON'T belong on Wikipedia. Here's some advice - go and make a blog - then you'll be able to voice your opinion towards people who actually care. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep my opinions off the main page, but I sure as shit won't keep them to myself here, where all I see are people who strangely worship the ground this guy walks on. I'm not going to rant about this guy anymore, he's not worth the time, but get this straight: He was convicted, in a court of law, of murder. That is not opinion. That is fact. Think about that for a second. And your argument maintaining his innocence is ridiculously delusional. Get a grip on reality.Fermentor (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I never argued once that he's innocent. Do not claim that I said things that I didn't. Anyway, my point is that the article needs to remain balanced - it needs to cover the crimes from the views of those involved well as that of the police/media/public, etc. The fact that Varg is a murderer does not mean that he needs to be punished on Wikipedia. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

New album!! 2009

Varg Vikernes' official (Burzum) website states that a new album is underway, and even links a Norwegian news article, which includes an interview with Vikernes. Perhaps this should be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.34.44 (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's probably more to do with Burzum than Varg Vikernes but I'll add it when more information is released (if somebody else doesn't do it first). EDIT: Sweet. It's already done. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Temple-of-Monkeys again

So there is a new interview with Vikernes, where he apparently denies some of his former terrorist and far-right activities. For Temple-of-Monkeys this interview apparently invalidates the previous academic research - why else would he remove the references to academic literature. Let's take a look at the interview: Vikernes doesn't deny that he has been involved with the Heathen Front, what he does say is: "Det er bare tull at jeg har startet rasistiske propagandagrupper." This would all boil down to the question whether Vikernes considers the Heath Front a racist propaganda group. Considering that they themselves denied being racist (they said they are nothing but "Germanic heathens"), it pretty likely that Vikernes simply wants to say here that the Heathen Front was not a racist propaganda group. And just because the Dagbladet only mentions: "Mediene spekulerte den gang i om han planla å sprenge Nidarosdomen," this doesn't mean that Coogan, who mentions that Vikernes had stated that the explosives were "intended to blow up Blitz House, the radical leftist and anarchist enclave in Oslo", is false. So it seems that I'm faced with the task of restoring those references, and write a coherent article using the old and new references. And, of course, I'll have to deal with Temple-of-Monkeys' possible objections. ...Zara1709 (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your first point as it could be a possibility, but I am very weary of Coogan's work as I haven't been able to find any reliable secondary sources to prove that Blitz house was being targeted by Vikernes (just hundreds of articles with the same exact quote). Anyway, after the Dagbladet article mentions media speculation of whether Vikernes was planning to blow up Nidarosdomen, Vikernes comments:

Tull og tøys. Jeg hadde skaffet meg dette for å kunne forsvare Norge hvis vi ble angrepet noen gang. Under den kalde krigen var det USA og Sovjetunionen som kunne finne på å angripe oss. Vi har ingen grunn til å stole på verken regjering, kongefamilien eller Forsvaret på grunn av det som skjedde sist gang vi ble angrepet. Vi er overlatt til oss selv, sier han.

Vikernes also states on his homepage that "I did other things in my life too (like prepare for partisan warfare in case of a US invasion of Norway...)" which backs up what he said in Dagbladet, and he said this in 2004. This means that he's had the same reason for keeping explosives for at least the last five years. This is why I removed the section on Blitz house - it just doesn't stand up as there is slightly more evidence against it than for it at the moment.

Don't forget, debating can solve conflicts. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, after another read of the interview in Dagbladet, there is an issue here which needs to be cleared up urgently. This is an excerpt from the interview:

I løpet av disse åra har han blitt koblet til nynazistiske og rasistiske miljøer.

- Jeg har aldri stiftet eller vært medlem av slike organisasjoner. Eneste organisasjonen jeg er medlem av, er Riksmålsforbundet.

Which translates directly to:

During these years he has been linked to neo-Nazi and racist groups.

- I have never formed or been a member of such organizations. The only organization I am a member of, is Riksmålsforbundet.

There is no ambiguity in that statement. Vikernes explicitly states that he has never formed or been a member of such organisations. Also, he states that the only organisation he is a member of is Riksmålforbundet, which according to Wikipedia is 'The Society for the Preservation of Traditional Standard Norwegian'. Therefore, saying that Vikernes formed, is a member of, or has been a member of the Norsk Hedensk Front or the Allgermanische Heidnische Front would be highly contentious and may be considered libellious. According to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, it should be removed immediately.
The thing which must be considered is that authors such as Gardell and Goodrick-Clarke may have retrieved their information on this subject from an unreliable source, and just because it is part of a printed publication does not make it correct. People make mistakes. And besides - I'm fairly sure that Vikernes would not have had the resources to form and run such organisations from inside prison, even if his minders allowed him to do so.
I await your reply. We really need to solve this. Thanks Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the political affiliations section again, to a version similar to my previous one, however this time I have added information on why Vikernes has been linked to the formation of the NHF and relevant information on his associations with them. It turns out that Antifa had libelliously claimed that Vikernes was the leader of the NHF and this may have been taken as true by the authors you reference, even though it was factually inaccurate. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Writer"

Please bear with me, but what are the standards that wikipedia has for that word? As far as I'm aware, he only wrote a bunch of blogs for his site. 86.43.179.253 (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism, Conspiracy Theories

This article up until now fails to mention his constant insane ramblings about "Jews", the "Jew-Press", etc., that are standards in the völkisch canon. Some examples currently proclaimed on his website:

As if that isn't enough they go on by interviewing a Dr. Michael Rothstein, a Jew by the way, in general terms on the subject of UFOs and the link to National Socialism. Again I can point at their odd choice of sources; why do they give a Jew the opportunity to air his thoughts on this subject to begin with? Of all the people in Scandinavia why do Moynihan and Søderlind want you to sit down and listen to what this Jew has to say about this subject? Do they expect this Jew to have anything positive or indeed insightful to say regarding our mythology?

In the start of the book they ridicule me for my allegedly paranoid conspiracy theories, claiming it is ludicrous to believe the Jews run many important establishments in Norway when there are so few of them in Norway. Well, why would we need many Jews in Norway for them to pull the strings in our society when we have people like Søderlind, with a Jewish philosophy of life, who are more than willing to carry out their work for them? He is even a member of the ultra-Jewish International Humanist and Ethical Union in Norway, which even has a Jewish leader, so he is working for them whether he likes it or not - whether he understands it or not. All Church of Satan members, all members of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, all O.T.O. members, all Freemasons, all Christians, all Communists and so forth are all working for the Jews. They can ridicule me for my so-called paranoid conspiracy theories as much as they want, but it sounds pretty dumb when the people who ridicule me for this are themselves actively working for Jews and for Jewish ideologies and philosophies, like Søderlind is - and possibly Moynihan as well.

To the authors of this book I can only say it's embarrassing to see how you regurgitate the lies of the police and media. Perhaps now you understand how I can call people like you unknowing (?) or ignorant minions of the Jews?

There are several characters named Varg Vikernes in Norway. One is the demonized, alienated, pilloried and ostracized bugbear denounced by the Jew-press and the so-called judicial system in Norway. He is not real, he never was real and never will be real, but he is loosely based on a real 19-year-old who in 1993 publicly expressed his anger at a modern world gone mad. The sick modern world moved on, deeper into Hell on a road paved with good intentions, but Varg Vikernes froze in time and was forced to live on in the fixed and fictional reality created by the dregs in the Jew-press and the "Norwegian inquisition".

What makes the modern democracy so despicable is first and foremost the fact that today anybody can vote, regardless of their loyalties, origin, lawfulness, intellectual capacity, health and general demeanour, as long as they are at least 18 years old. There are no quality tests. Even morally bankrupt drug dealers, serial rapists, incurable pedophiles, vile sadists, disgusting homosexuals, sharebrokers and all the other degenerates and criminals of our societies are allowed to vote! Muslims, Jews, Freemasons and Christians, who all hate Europe and see us, our European nations and cultures as inferior and primitive, are allowed to vote! Utterly simple-minded individuals, who barely know what culture is, are allowed to vote! Even aliens who didn't even care enough for their own nations to stay home are allowed to vote! All that these individuals need in order to influence the course of our nations is to be at least 18 years old.

--87.171.113.211 (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

nice quotation......

found a nice quotation from him:

"The modern man has lost his connection to the soil of his forefathers. The modern man's connection to his forefathers and the gods of his blood is lost too. He travels all across the Earth as a creature with no roots anywhere. He no longer grows his own food, he no longer catches his own fish or meat, he no longer milks the cows or collects eggs, berries, nuts, fruit and sea shells from nature. He no longer builds his own home or buries his own kin. He has lost his respect for nature, for his fatherland and for his kin, but he has gained nothing. The soul of the modern man is dead. He has lost almost everything.' Varg Vikernes --79.212.19.35 (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)robert

Thank you for sharing; he does make some interesting points there, but wikipedia's talk pages are not necessarily purposed to just share some "cool quotes". Is there any way that this quote could be applied to wikipedia notably? Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 22:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Donations for Haiti

Anyone dig up sources for this ? The original press release from the label seems gone. zubrowka74 18:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

A Google search on the terms "Varg Vikernes" and "Haiti" yields a number of articles. I don't think the absence of the original press release (I looked for it on the Wayback Machine with no success) should preclude this from being mentioned in our article. __meco (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Occupations

Under occupations in the infobox it says "Murderer, Arsonist". While he indeed was both a murderer and an arsonist, doesn't putting it under "Occupations" imply he worked in those "fields"? As in, that they were jobs he worked in? I think it can lead to some confusion. Opinions? Sentient Planet (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course this is obvious vandalism by editors more concerned by their POV than by veracity or exactitude of the information. Should be corrected unless it's specified somewhere that Wikipedia considers "murder" as an "occupation". zubrowka74 18:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Lords Of Chaos

To reinforce a point made previously -

although many may agree that Lords of Chaos by M. Moynihan & D. Søderlind is a great book, Varg has stated in a review he has written on www.burzum.org that Lords Of Chaos is VERY factually inaccurate, to put it simply. I think it would be a good idea to avoid quoting information directly from this book on the Varg Vikernes wiki in the future. Please treat the information in this book (not only on Varg but the entire Norwegian black metal scene) as unauthoritive until you can find a good reference to back it up, and have checked Varg's word - quotes from Varg himself are usually the most authorative, provided they are from www.burzum.org (this is because there are many false statements and interviews with "Varg Vikernes" on the internet).

Varg's review of Lords Of Chaos can be found here. Please check this page before you use information from Lords Of Chaos. You may also want to quote Varg's point of view on the information.

I have left the remaining statements from Lords Of Chaos on the Varg Vikernes wiki there. They are very neutral quotations so I believe they should stay.

210.246.16.252 (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC) (Temple-of-Monkeys).

So somehow this review, or a potential autobiography, written by a controversial figure known for being a pathological liar and sociopath is somehow credible? I'll answer that one for you: No, it's not. In fact, it's far less credible than "Lords of Chaos". This is exactly the kind of situation that makes Wikipedia the unreliable source that it is: any information that is critical of a person, film, political theory, or whatever, is instantly claimed as "not a valid source" by all the die-hards that cannot view things objectively. I posted properly cited information from that book regarding Vikernes' belief in eugenics and was accused of libel. Unbelievable. I'm not going to bother re-entering my edit right now because I don't have time for this, but rest assured that this page is a mess and is full of bias by the handful of Vikernes "fans" and Nazi-sympathizers. I'm not signing this specifically because I do not want supporters of this psychopath to leak onto my un-used page that I don't even check. Keep this in mind: my opinion of the guy is that he is a murderous sociopath who lies for a living and obsessively attaches himself to a new ideology every couple of years. I would say that he does this to try and remain relevant, but honestly I think it's because he truly has no capability of independant thought and no intellectual strength. However, you won't see me include this in an edit because it would be a subjective edit and I do not make subjective edits on Wikipedia. You all should do the same, rather than turn on "attack mode" anytime someone introduces anything remotely critical of your idol, properly cited, that makes you unhappy. There is nothing more unbiased and improper to cite than statements made by someone on their own webpage regarding themselves that conflict with the recorded record. People who do not understand this, people who believe only what they want to believe, these people have no place editing on Wikipedia.

That's a fair point you raise. I don't know who you refer to when you mention being accused of libel, but if I offended you myself I would like to apologise.

What I'm trying to get across about Lords of Chaos is that all of the content in the book is original research by Moynihan and Søderlind, and there is no way to prove whether it's authorative unless a secondary reference is sourced. If the information in Lords of Chaos is correct, then a secondary reference will be able to back it up, and there won't be a problem. The review by Varg Vikernes is actually quite objective for the most part, and he speaks about a few of the factual inaccuracies in the book. I ask you to read it with an open mind, even if you don't agree with the views of Varg Vikernes.

This quote is directly from Wikipedia's reliable sources page - "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience or extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities". Therefore, it's alright to use quotes by Vikernes about himself. Think about it, is it right to ignore information on Varg Vikernes from Vikernes himself in preference of information from a third party?

If one source says something about Vikernes, but Vikernes himself says something else, include both views. It's easy. If information from a source is proven to be inaccurate by other sources, then it should not be used. If you're unsure about a source or think the information may be considered libellious, then talk about it on this discussion page, that's what it's for.

To all users: please keep all edits balanced and neutral. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It is clear Temple-of-Monkeys has been brainwashed by The Count. I love it how he says;

" Please treat the information in this book (not only on Varg but the entire Norwegian black metal scene) as unauthoritive until you can find a good reference to back it up, and have checked Varg's word - quotes from Varg himself are usually the most authorative"

In other words, we're supposed to believe everything The Mighty Born-To-Be-White Count says, because "quotes from Varg himself are usually the most authorative". HAHHAHA clearly this sad sap has never attended university. Soldier on, kid! 119.224.14.50 (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"What I'm trying to get across about Lords of Chaos is that all of the content in the book is original research by Moynihan and Søderlind, and there is no way to prove whether it's authorative unless a secondary reference is sourced" And who exactly has the "authority" you keep badgering about?? Varg Vikernes?? Did it cross your narrow-minded unicelular brain that perhaps, MAYBE, just maybe, Varg Vikernes could - I don't know - be lieing? I have read his review on the book (Lord of Chaos) and I'm amazed anybody could take him seriously with though such as:

"why do they give a Jew the opportunity to air his thoughts on this subject to begin with? Of all the people in Scandinavia why do Moynihan and Søderlind want you to sit down and listen to what this Jew has to say about this subject?" - Uhm jeezz, I don't know Varg. It's a little something called RESEARCH objective people do. Crazy as it sounds, it's pretty important shit. Out in the real world we don't just think stuff up like you do, we gotta have evidence and whatnot.

Keep the following extract in mind, it will be usefull in the one after:

"I am even accused of having read La Vey's "Satanic Bible". They even interview people about these guys and their philosophies as if they played a role in the so-called "Rise Of The Metal Underground". Now tell me; do they know if I have read books by these men or not? They could have asked me, of course, but instead they just assume I and everybody else have." - Varg is basically rightfully saying how anyone can assume you (or an entire population) have read something, when they could have in fact not read it. Varg 1 - Lord of Chaos Authors 0.

BUT

"I mentioned Venom and the fact that I never listened to their music. In fact the only person in the whole Black Metal scene in Norway who had listened to Venom was Aarseth (although he still claimed he liked them a lot I - luckily - never heard him play any of their records)." - Wait, stop the bus!. How exactly does Varg Vikernes know for a fact that out of "the WHOLE BLACK METAL SCENE IN NORWAY" the only one to have been exposed to VENOM was Øystein. I'm guessing he asked EVERYONE in the Black Metal Scene in Norway. It'd be interesting to see what the guys from Carpathian Forest have to say about that, or heck, even the guys in MAYHEM. How could they not have been exposed? if there were covers of Venom's "Black Metal", "Welcome to Hell" and "At War With Satan" LP's in Øystein's Helvete shop. There's a picture of it in PAGE 70 of the revised edition (2003) of Lord of Chaos. Varg -1 - Lord of Chaos Authors 2.

"verybody else in the scene either hated Venom or didn't even know who they were." - If EVERYBODY hated venom, how can at least one person not know who they are? Varg's clearly not big in logic. If some apples are red, at least one is green. If all apples are red, none could be green. And we're supposed to take as "authoritative" the diatrabe Varg spews? It's not even logical.

"As an example I can tell that the first time I even heard about them (Venom) was in 1991!" - Didn't Varg say up there he "never listened to their (Venom) music"? Maybe I'm "misinterpreting", "taking out of context", "misunderstanding" because of "malicious lies" made as a "result of ignorance" "extreme exaggerations", "and/or third-hand information at best" although I'm quoting straight of his burzum.org page.

"Still they keep nagging about Venom throughout the book, and list them as some sort of origin to the whole movement and the ideas it was built upon." Clearly, Varg isn't too big on reading comprehension. The book doesn't list them as "origin of the whole movement" nor the "ideas it was built upon" in fact, the book mentions Venom using Satanic imagery for purely entertainment puposes, no different from a Kiss show or a horror movie.

So there. Is that the "authority" Temple-of-Monkeys was talking about? Seems to be as authoritative as the janitor calling the shots in a open heart surgery. I'd keep dissecting Varg's little review but as he'd say himself;

"There are better things to do in life than diving into such a pool of mud".

119.224.14.50 (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC) "

Where is Varg

Anyone got an idea ? Google map, gps location, or anything similar. Lets find him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.205.149 (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Year of activity's beginning

I corrected the year of Varg's musical activity beginning, changing it from 1987 to 1988, because I looked for some source texts and I found no pages that say Varg started to play in 1987; so I read his official biography in the site burzum.org, and I read he started to make music between 1988 and '89. I also wrote the search text in the category Year of activity to avoid another doubts or mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.183.11 (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

.. and a double headed dildo ..

uhm, what is so important about this "double headed dildo" part of the text? What has this to do with the ammunition / weaponry stuff at all? Ie. is this relevant in the context of the findings? (fwolf) --217.252.111.145 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious that the editor was too ignorant to realise that the inherent homophobia of his attempt to suggest that Vikernes is queer makes him as bad as any racist. It'll never cease to amaze me how people can go on and on about Vikernes or racism in general to purport to be clever only to demonstrate that they themselves are homophobic or misogynist simpletons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.12.146.200 (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Current name unknown

Just for the record, he changed his name again (both first and last names) a couple of years ago (http://www.nettavisen.no/innenriks/ibergen/article2082712.ece). Apparently his new name bears no resemblance to Varg Vikernes and is "French sounding". Obviously the article title must remain as it is since that's what he's known as, but perhaps it should be mentioned that it's not his actual legal name? 88.88.94.55 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

uh yeah, changing the article title to "a name sort of french-sounding" won't really work. Nor will mentioning something that vague in the article at all. So until there is a verifiable, reliable source saying explicitly "he legally changed his name to John Doe" nothing happens here.Tao2911 (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

He's changed his name to Louis Cachet. It was relatively easy to cross reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.179.243 (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, really? Then name your reference here, or edit the article using a footnote, instead of writing “[i]t was relatively easy to cross reference” (totally needless comment)! --217/83 14:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

this is his blog http://thuleanperspective.com where he said he's married to a french woman.He also claims on ancestralcult.com that he's working with Marie Cochet(possibly his wife) on an amateur documentary.Edit * this one : http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=37wW5rR8624#! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vldtheimpaler (talk • contribs) 13:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure you mean Cachet, not Cochet? A film my Marie Cachet and Vikernes is mentioned on his site. And according to this interview, she is his wife. He added links to her site very often lately. --217/83 18:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes,i've meant Cachet.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vldtheimpaler (talk • contribs) 22:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

How do we know it's his blog and not some copycat ? The site looks pretty amateur and Vikernes already has Burzum.org to publish his texts. Looks like an unreliable source to me. zubrowka74 17:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point,and you might be right.But consider the following: thulean perspective is attached to ancestral cult ,which is attached to burzum.org .He uses his name in comments and some posts are signed with "V.V." .Also ancestralcult is focused on the work and interests of his and his wife's.i know what i've brought up is pretty weak but why would he attach a blog which is a copycat to that site ? And the ideas expressed there are terrible,and enough to compromise him,if that wasn't what he believes in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vldtheimpaler (talk • contribs) 22:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn’t look at the site, but I agree; he has the Burzum site. --217/83 18:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Upon further research, the site might be legit. The couple seems to maintain several blogs and at least two of them link to "Thulean perspective", namely Marie Cachet's and the film project blog. If it's an imposture, it's an elaborate one. zubrowka74 18:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, well, it still doesn't show that he's changed his name. The main Burzum site still uses "Varg Vikernes" pretty unambiguously. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

According to TV 2 (Norway) he has changed his name to Louis Cachet. http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/utenriks/naboene-vekket-av-politiet-som-skjoet-opp-doeren-til-terrormistenkte-varg-vikernes-4088752.html Should the article be changed? 88.88.186.81 (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Arrest article

While his recent arrest has been added already, this article has a bit of extra info about him. Yes I know it's in french but I'm sure there's an english version somewhere. Other than this I can translate. 142.243.254.209 (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

BBC used this article : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23327165

Yeah, the BBC seems more neutral but the french one has more gossip tidbits : Marie Cachet being being pregnant of a 4rth child, the oldest kid being homeschooled and the whole family not really incorporating very well with the rest of the village. zubrowka74 19:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The BBC is neutral simply because they paraphrased almost the entire Wiki article. Some news agency. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Pronounciation of the name Varg Vikernes

It seems that the pronounciation of the name Varg Vikernes given in IPA is from Eastern Norwegian, but Vikernes is from Bergen. Shouldn’t there be (also) a pronounciation guide for this name in his native language? There are no retroflex sounds in the Bergen language as far as I know.

Maybe something like [ˈʋɑʁɡ ˈʋiːkɛʁneːs]. --Njardarlogar (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I suggest merging Burzum into this article. It is a one man musical project. There are no other members. We don't have separate pages for Madonna (entertainer) and Madonna Louise Ciccone. Why should it be the same for Varg Vikernes? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose Burzum is too relevant to not have its own article. In addition, Vikernes has worked in other projects, including Mayhem. Gothbag (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Influential and authentic band such as Burzum should have an article of its own. Although Vikernes is its founder, as Gothbag pointed, he worked with other bands.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose per Gothbag. --Jorm (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• I have no opinion one way or another but if they're not going to be merged then they need to cross-reference each other on both pages (you know what I'm saying, with a subsection about each other and a link to each other on each page). I don't know, is this vote decided and one could therefore go ahead with cross referencing the two? makeswell (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose per Gothbag. And also the Madonna argument doesn't stand. "Madonna" is a stage name, "Burzum" is not. Varg Vikernes is not his real name anyhow, this would be analogous to your example. zubrowka74 17:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Would you merge Ozzy Osbourne and Black Sabbath or Michael Jackson with the Jackson Five? Even Bruce Springsteen, Prince and Jimi Hendrix have their own bands that are freestanding articles here on Wikipedia (The E Street Band, The Revolution (band) and The Jimi Hendrix Experience, respectively). Number of members is completely irrelevant in my opinion. 83.108.204.250 (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gothbag. Burzum is notable enough to have its own article. It would be as meaningless and ineffective as merging Nine Inch Nails to Trent Reznor article. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

MYFAROG

The criticisms of Mythic Fantasy Role-playing Game being "overly complex" and "racist" come from biased sources. In fact, the Dangerous Minds article quotes the MetalSucks source. MetalSucks writers often publish unfair critical articles on Vikernes; it is not a neutral website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.152.149 (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Height?

What's Louis Cachet's height, if even approximate? --KpoT (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

There's no official source that has this but comparing him standing next to his UAZ, he looks to be approximately 185-190cm. (6'1"-6'3") 110.23.182.197 (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Varg ´s Youtube Channel

It should be included in the wiki just to highlight what the man is doing currently. Its pretty easy to find. The channels name is ThuleanPerspective — Preceding unsigned comment added by DomSidious (talk • contribs) 03:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It's actually already mentioned in the main body of the article. 2601:8C:4102:1210:DB6:186F:FCE0:7644 (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi navbox

@Psychedelia: Just to follow up on this edit rationale, David Bowie also famously expressed sympathy for fascism. As far as I know, he could be considered a Neo-Nazi idol as well. But that wouldn't merit {{fascism footer}} to appear at the bottom of his page.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Unidentified Flying Aryans

Why isn't there any mention of Varg's empirical analysis on UFO's and how he believes that extraterrestrial beings, from Atlatis and whatnot, put blue-eyed peeps on this Earth to keep things running as it should? Also can someone explain to me how Varg manages to tie together Odin and Norse Mythology in that extraterrestial story? 119.224.14.50 (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That is strange, as Varg does not believe in ETs... 96.31.10.178 (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Varg Vikernes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/61BibRB0d?url=http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2477398.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2477398.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tv2nyhetene.no/innenriks/krim/article2614786.ece
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.arktos.com/germansk-mytologi-verdensanskuelse.html?___store=gbz
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130320084420/http://thuleanperspective.com/2013/03/15/the-cleansing/ to http://thuleanperspective.com/2013/03/15/the-cleansing/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050930220112/http://www.antirasistisk-senter.no/infobank/hoyre_nor/nazirapp2001.PDF to http://www.antirasistisk-senter.no/infobank/hoyre_nor/nazirapp2001.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050911071204/http://www.antirasistisk-senter.no/infobanken/dokumenter/artikler/xt99.html to http://www.antirasistisk-senter.no/infobanken/dokumenter/artikler/xt99.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012031644/http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article656500.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article656500.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090606001302/http://www.metalcrypt.com/pages/interviewsframe.php?intid=170 to http://www.metalcrypt.com/pages/interviewsframe.php?intid=170

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

White Nationalist category

Responding to this message left on my talk page:

I see you have an interest in many articles of this nature. You've edited the article extensively, there are numerous sources describing him as a Neo-Nazi, White Nationalist. If you want the article to look like the article on Rational Wiki, force me to spend more time on this article. Because I'll find the God Damn sources and rewrite the whole damn thing. Or you can leave the CAT in there and stop trying to whitewash a Nazi's article. Dave Dial (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Read: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I don't care what you do to the article so long as it's within reason of WP:BLP and other policies. However, if you have plans to "rewrite" the entire page then I strongly suggest you consult this talk page first and voice your concerns. I'm not a fan of Vikernes nor his music but the article already appears pretty comprehensive to me. It covers most, if not all of his criticisms, and also includes what he believes in his own words. (I presume you'd want to add a thousand superfluous quotes from random blogs deeming him a Neo-Nazi.)

As for the category, "white nationalist" is a potentially defamatory label, and WP:BLPREMOVE clearly states that "conjectural interpretation of a source" must be removed. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've spent maybe 10 minutes looking and have found several sources stating the subject of this article is a Neo-Nazi & White Nationalist. Both already are cited in the article. The Encyclopedia of White Power by Jeffrey Kaplan & Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke are two. If you wish to make further changes, or make other BLP claims, do so on the talk page first. You've already surpassed 3RR today. Dave Dial (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

But do any use the term "white nationalist"? The phrase does not appear in the article, thus it's OR for Wikipedia to state that he is one.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes they do, which you would know if you read the God Damn sources before making BLP claims that aren't relevant. For fucks sake, the whole reason this asshat has an article is because he's a Neo-Nazi white nationalist. Dave Dial (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

But you haven't quoted any of the sources directly, nor pointed to specific pages where I (and, more importantly, the reader) can actually see. WP:VERIFY: All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

Also, Vikernes' notability derives from Burzum and from murdering Euronymous. He would not have an article if he was just some "Neo-Nazi white nationalist". --Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

locked

I have locked the page - post on other revenant pages (or RfC) get extra opinions and sources please. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Can Evidence be Cited?

Is there any actual evidence that Varg Vikernes actually burnt any churches. The media mentions that evidence exists, but fails to actually provide the evidence. "There is evidence that the cow jumped over the moon, no examples provided" isn't actually evidence in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:D082:7001:F4B7:47D7:80E3:5FF5 (talk • contribs)

You can cite WP:Reliable sources describing the evidence, but not primary sources such as court and police documents. If the media says Vikernes burned churches, then that's what Wikipedia summarizes for the reader. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit of 18 Mar 2019

Grayfell removed a link to "Thulean Perspective" from the article, but the Infobox still contains two external links to the actual site. Not sure if this is OK or not--Quisqualis (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Do reliable, independent sources define him as a youtuber? In general, infoboxes are used to summarize basic detail, but his youtube activity is only basic to the extent it is documented by reliable sources as a defining trait. The number of subscribers is not sufficient for this, especially since he is also a musician. Right now, the only mention of youtube in the article are sourced to his own youtube channel, which is a problem. If this cannot be supported as a defining characteristic, the youtuber infobox module should be removed. Grayfell (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

He shouldn't be presented here as a "youtuber" unless secondary sources have named him as a notable youtube presence. His personal videos can be used for citing basic facts he claims about himself, but that's it. --Laser brain (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Islam categories

This person is in two categories: Category:Critics of Islam and Category:Opposition to Islam in Europe, but the article body mentions Islam briefly in only one sentence towards the very end where it says "Vikernes was instead charged by French authorities with inciting racial hatred against Jews and Muslims." Can somebody expand on this? Islam seems to be quite far down the list on this individual's focus, certainly less so than Christianity and Judaism. I mean, it makes sense that Michel Houellebecq or Ayaan Hirsi Ali are in these categories as they have authored anti-Islamic books and their public image is centered on that, but is this persons "contribution" significant enough to warrant being in those categories? Ishbiliyya (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)